• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

American said:
But that's different isn't it?
Click to expand...
Not according to how I read the question - but, I may have misinterpreted.

IIRC, the gun manufacturer has to report the S/Ns of the guns it produces to the BATF.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

BTW.. Assault weapons have been banned since the early '80's!

Once that was done, then they redefined "assault weapon" to basically cover any scary looking rifle... :spin:

Now, once they got those taking care of (confiscated) then grandpa's 1903 bolt-action is next "assault rifle" and so on until the TYRANTS have nothing standing in there way..

ALL of these anti-gun arguments are simply regurgitating the rhetoric provided by those same TYRANTS... I think they are called "useful Idiots" :doh
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Goobieman said:
Not according to how I read the question - but, I may have misinterpreted.

IIRC, the gun manufacturer has to report the S/Ns of the guns it produces to the BATF.
Click to expand...
I agree, and registration numbers are unique to the purchaser are they not? So how could a registration number be placed on a weapon.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

People don't kill people... Registration numbers kill people ///:rofl :rofl
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

American said:
I agree, and registration numbers are unique to the purchaser are they not? So how could a registration number be placed on a weapon.
Click to expand...
There is no BATF-mandated 'registration number', only a serial number.
I'm not sure what you're getting at?
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Goobieman said:
Who argued that?
Click to expand...

I got my terminology wrong. I meant the serial number... so that in the case of a murder, the manufacturer can be approached and the sale traced to the suspect. I didn't realize that's how it worked. I thought all guns were registered in a different way.

Nevermind then. No to registration.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Orius said:
I got my terminology wrong. I meant the serial number... so that in the case of a murder, the manufacturer can be approached and the sale traced to the suspect. I didn't realize that's how it worked. I thought all guns were registered in a different way.
Click to expand...
Thats what I thought you meant.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

hazlnut said:
Good. I wish they'd do that in Ca.
Click to expand...

So.. basically what will happen is people will drive to AZ, Utah, or Nevada and buy ammo.


YAY for more stupid laws that noone will follow other than law abiding citizens.

Your ignorance and naivety is ****ing outrageous.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

ConservaBill said:
BTW.. Assault weapons have been banned since the early '80's!

Once that was done, then they redefined "assault weapon" to basically cover any scary looking rifle... :spin:

Now, once they got those taking care of (confiscated) then grandpa's 1903 bolt-action is next "assault rifle" and so on until the TYRANTS have nothing standing in there way..

ALL of these anti-gun arguments are simply regurgitating the rhetoric provided by those same TYRANTS... I think they are called "useful Idiots" :doh
Click to expand...

See, here's the problem with overzealous gun rights advocates: It's always "THEY". This big ol' scary THEY is going to come into their house and take away guns...

The Federal Ban is very specific. What legitimate purpose would a gun owner have for a fully-automatic M16 except to get his lame rocks off showing it to his redneck friends.

The overzealous types are so caught up in owning the banned guns because it's their RIGHT. That's called reading the second amendment through a keyhole, totally disregarding 200 years of advances in firearms technology, gun ownership trends, and the huge illegal gun black marked used by felons.

Assault Weapons definitions and laws differ state to state. So who is the THEY you are taking about. What state/county do you live in??
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

hazlnut said:
See, here's the problem with overzealous gun rights advocates: It's always "THEY". This big ol' scary THEY is going to come into their house and take away guns...

The Federal Ban is very specific. What legitimate purpose would a gun owner have for a fully-automatic M16 except to get his lame rocks off showing it to his redneck friends.

The overzealous types are so caught up in owning the banned guns because it's their RIGHT. That's called reading the second amendment through a keyhole, totally disregarding 200 years of advances in firearms technology, gun ownership trends, and the huge illegal gun black marked used by felons.

Assault Weapons definitions and laws differ state to state. So who is the THEY you are taking about. What state/county do you live in??
Click to expand...


What legitimate purpose would a liberal need to set the flag on fire for?

The second amendment is very plain and simple, much like the first.

Maybe you guys should take an english class or two... So that you may fully grasp it.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

hazlnut said:
The Federal Ban is very specific. What legitimate purpose would a gun owner have for a fully-automatic M16 except to get his lame rocks off showing it to his redneck friends.
Click to expand...
And there's the problem with overzealous anti-gun rights loons:
They dont know what they're talking about.

-There is no federal ban on M16s or 'assaul weapons'.
-An M16, any other assault rifle, and any 'assault weapon' is perfectly capable of being effectively used for any legitimate use someone might have for a gun

This lack of knowledge - this objective ignorance of the subject material - forces the anti-gun rights loons base their arguments on hyperbole and ad homs. These arguments, so based, necessarily fail; a fact ignored by the anti-gun rights loons as indicated by their failure to intelligently and effectively defend their arguments

The overzealous types are so caught up in owning the banned guns because it's their RIGHT. That's called reading the second amendment through a keyhole, totally disregarding 200 years of advances in firearms technology, gun ownership trends, and the huge illegal gun black marked used by felons.
Click to expand...
This is an example of the objectively ignorant anti-gun rights loon using the 'technology' argument. Said objectively ignorant anti-gun loons inevitably ignore questions about their reasoning behind this argument, especially once it is pointed out that while they did not exist 200 years ago, CNN is still protected by the 1st amendment, and their phone conversations are still protected by the 4th.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

hazlnut said:
Good. I wish they'd do that in Ca.
Click to expand...

Then, when ammo gets stolen from someone's private stock, that person will get fingered, wrongly, for the murder. Meanwhile, the actual murderer will be getting that much farther away from the grasp of justice.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

apdst said:
Then, when ammo gets stolen from someone's private stock, that person will get fingered, wrongly, for the murder. Meanwhile, the actual murderer will be getting that much farther away from the grasp of justice.
Click to expand...

Nevermind the fact that most projectiles get so mangled in the body they're pretty hard to identify let alone read microscopic serial numbers on.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

chevydriver1123 said:
In NY they are attempting to pass a law that requires stamping ammo.
Click to expand...
And so, when the criminals get their ammo from outside NY...
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

stevenb said:
Nevermind the fact that most projectiles get so mangled in the body they're pretty hard to identify let alone read microscopic serial numbers on.
Click to expand...

They're probably going to stamp the casing, anyway. The spent brass collected at the crime scene will be used as evidence.

I can hear it now: 70 y/o woman suspect in gang drive-by.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

apdst said:
They're probably going to stamp the casing, anyway. The spent brass collected at the crime scene will be used as evidence.
Click to expand...
Revolvers, anyone?
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

hazlnut said:
The Federal Ban is very specific. What legitimate purpose would a gun owner have for a fully-automatic M16 except to get his lame rocks off showing it to his redneck friends.
Click to expand...

Fully automatic guns have not been allowed for many years without the possession of a special federal permit that very few people have.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Gill said:
Fully automatic guns have not been allowed for many years without the possession of a special federal permit that very few people have.
Click to expand...
Its not really a licence.

To purchase a fully-automatic weapon, you submit your transnfer paperwork to the BATF and pay a $200 tax on the transfer.

Full-auto weapons, even belt-fed machoneguns, are relatively expensive, but readily available.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

apdst said:
They're probably going to stamp the casing, anyway. The spent brass collected at the crime scene will be used as evidence.

I can hear it now: 70 y/o woman suspect in gang drive-by.
Click to expand...

I know how to police my brass...

I imagine others would just learn how.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Goobieman said:
Its not really a licence.

To purchase a fully-automatic weapon, you submit your transnfer paperwork to the BATF and pay a $200 tax on the transfer.

Full-auto weapons, even belt-fed machoneguns, are relatively expensive, but readily available.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was thinking of the dealers Class III FFL license requirement.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

jamesrage said:
Amazing how that little detail seems to eludes anti-2nd amendment nuts. The only reason for a firearm registration is so the government knows who has what so that one day day they can go knocking on doors to confiscate firearms.
Click to expand...

You assume that those who push gun controls actually INTEND that the stuff they promote is designed to impact crime?

Gun control laws work very well for what they are intended to do

HASSLE AND DISARM HONEST PEOPLE
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

TurtleDude said:
You assume that those who push gun controls actually INTEND that the stuff they promote is designed to impact crime?

Gun control laws work very well for what they are intended to do

HASSLE AND DISARM HONEST PEOPLE
Click to expand...

I agree thats why politicians enact anti-2nd amendment laws. Most of the anti-2nd amendment voters are morons who buy into the nonsense that somehow making something illegal is going to stop people who in the first place do not obey the laws.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

CA has a micro stamping law in place that is set to take effect Jan. 1, 2010. It was passed in 2007 and signed by that RINO Schwarzenegger.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_1471]AB 1471 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Never mind that the technology is not reliable enough to garner certification as being 100% reliable. Never mind that no manufacturer has started working on implementing micro stamping on any weapon.

Also signed on the same day was a law outlawing any ammunition that contains any amount of lead in the majority of hunting areas in California. The problem with this is that almost every bullet contains at least a small amount of lead in the metal alloy that the bullet is made from. While this law does not ban guns, it does make shooting them tremendously more expensive.

There is another bill that is on his desk now that would require fingerprinting every time you buy ammunition in CA. It would also ban mail order or internet sales of ammunition or reloading supplies. Again, this would not ban guns but would make it almost impossible to get ammunition for many of the less common types and sizes of ammunition. If you can't get ammunition, you can't use your gun. So expect to see more of these types of laws designed to do an end run around the 2nd amendment.

California AB 962: Ban all mail-order and Internet sales of handgun ammunition.

"The bill is on the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, where it awaits his consideration. He will have until Oct. 11 to sign or veto the bill. If he does not veto the bill, it will become law."

Expect to see him take no action which will be the same as signing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom